Jeffrey Gedmin: Teheran and the Bomb

We are glad to have received Jeffrey Gedmin's permission to print the original English version of his article in WELT, Was wäre wenn....?

WHAT IF... ?Teheran and the BombColumn in "Die Welt" (26.04.2006)By Jeffrey Gedmin

A couple years ago British historian Andrew Roberts published a volume of essays in counterfactual history, also known as "what if" history. Some of this stuff seems extravagant, I admit, like speculating how things wouldhave been different had Nazi Germany won the Second World War. I find more stimulating the comparatively discreet questions, like what would havehappened had the Brighton bombing succeeded in killing Margaret Thatcher.

In 1982 IRA terrorists murdered five people by exploding two large bombs atthe Grand Hotel in the English seaside city of Brighton. Thatcher, whosebathroom was shredded by the explosion, narrowly escaped uninjured. HadThatcher died that night, Michael Heseltine might have become PrimeMinister. Imagine: no Thatcher revolution, no transformation of the Britisheconomy, no key ally for Ronald Reagan, nobody to tell George Bush senior in 1991 not to go "wobbly" after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Some see counterfactual history as a useless parlour game. Others lament itssuperficial read of events, as it tends to underestimate social processes and other "historical forces." I tend to appreciate, though, the role of key personalities, good (and bad) ideas and sometimes sheer serendipity inshaping the course of things.

I recall in the 1980s in the GDR being with a friend in Ilmenau, whosemother gazed out the kitchen window and told of how after the World War II American troops came and sat on one side of the hill, Soviet troops on the other. She wondered aloud, with evident melancholy, how her own life might have been different had the Red Army left days later and the Americansinstead had stayed.

I've got my own counterfactual history of Iraq. It starts with 1991. Imagine Saddam had possessed nuclear weapons. He was closer togetting the bomb than we had imagined before to the first Gulf War. Isuspect Kuwait would have become the 19th province of Iraq and the oil fields ofSaudi Arabia might belong to Baghdad today. I have my own thoughts aboutthe last four years as well. Only a fool would deny that we Americans havemade grave mistakes and that the security situation in the Iraq is extremelyserious. I find it ridiculous, though, to see the smug anti-war crowd

crow that all would have been fine had Bush and Blair only left Saddam alone.Imagine we had left Saddam in power and he had broken free of feeble UNsanctions (and he would have); imagine he had reconstituted his chemical andbiological weapons programs. He had the infrastructure, clandestinelaboratories and the rest, all still in place. Imagine he had started activecollaboration with Al Qaeda. Documents discovered in Baghdad confirm thatIraqi intelligence had indeed been in conversation with Osama bin Laden'smen.

And if we fail to stop Iran from getting the bomb? The President of Iransays he wants to create an "Islamic Superpower," wipe Israel off the map, provoke a "Clash of Civilizations," deploy 40,000 suicide bombers for global jihad, inspire millions of muslim "ghazis" (holy raiders) and follow his "Hidden Imam," the true Sovereign of the World, into glorious death.

I know what history--and counterfactual history-I want when this current chapter is finished.

The "smug anti-war crowd" will remain just that. This won't change with Iran, either. Unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinedschad knows this and also senses that the other "voices" (perhaps like Mr. Gedmin's, as Pamela noted) have changed, weakened. He's pushing it as far as he can and has already gotten away with more than he had hoped for, I imagine. Would a military intervention be fine with him now, too? Does this guy see all of this as a win/win situation - for now?